Pathway Summary
Consort map
Demographic information
## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'fam_income', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::fisher.test(c("20001_above", "10001_12000", "4001_6000", : FEXACT 錯誤碼 7(location). LDSTP=18600 對此問題而言太小，
## (pastp=70.1671, ipn_0:=ipoin[itp=71]=1, stp[ipn_0]=69.9036).
## 請增加工作空間或考慮使用 'simulate.p.value=TRUE'## There was an error in 'add_p()/add_difference()' for variable 'diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic', p-value omitted:
## Error in stats::chisq.test(x = c("no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", "no", : 'x' and 'y' must have at least 2 levelsCharacteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 250 | 51.17 ± 13.17 (23 - 75) | 50.68 ± 13.45 (23 - 75) | 51.66 ± 12.92 (28 - 75) | 0.559 |
gender | 250 | 0.327 | |||
f | 204 (82%) | 99 (79%) | 105 (84%) | ||
m | 46 (18%) | 26 (21%) | 20 (16%) | ||
occupation | 250 | 0.711 | |||
day_training | 6 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
full_time | 29 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 15 (12%) | ||
homemaker | 32 (13%) | 15 (12%) | 17 (14%) | ||
other | 4 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | 3 (2.4%) | ||
part_time | 43 (17%) | 23 (18%) | 20 (16%) | ||
retired | 61 (24%) | 28 (22%) | 33 (26%) | ||
self_employ | 8 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
shelter | 4 (1.6%) | 4 (3.2%) | 0 (0%) | ||
student | 4 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
t_and_e | 4 (1.6%) | 3 (2.4%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
unemploy | 55 (22%) | 29 (23%) | 26 (21%) | ||
marital | 250 | 0.776 | |||
cohabitation | 2 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
divore | 27 (11%) | 15 (12%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
in_relationship | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
married | 76 (30%) | 35 (28%) | 41 (33%) | ||
none | 117 (47%) | 59 (47%) | 58 (46%) | ||
seperation | 3 (1.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
widow | 19 (7.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
edu | 250 | 0.690 | |||
bachelor | 54 (22%) | 24 (19%) | 30 (24%) | ||
diploma | 42 (17%) | 25 (20%) | 17 (14%) | ||
hd_ad | 6 (2.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
none | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | ||
postgraduate | 17 (6.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
primary | 22 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | 13 (10%) | ||
secondary_1_3 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | ||
secondary_4_5 | 66 (26%) | 31 (25%) | 35 (28%) | ||
secondary_6_7 | 13 (5.2%) | 6 (4.8%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
fam_income | 250 | ||||
10001_12000 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | ||
12001_14000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
14001_16000 | 12 (4.8%) | 4 (3.2%) | 8 (6.4%) | ||
16001_18000 | 5 (2.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 2 (1.6%) | ||
18001_20000 | 12 (4.8%) | 8 (6.4%) | 4 (3.2%) | ||
20001_above | 43 (17%) | 26 (21%) | 17 (14%) | ||
2001_4000 | 37 (15%) | 18 (14%) | 19 (15%) | ||
4001_6000 | 31 (12%) | 14 (11%) | 17 (14%) | ||
6001_8000 | 22 (8.8%) | 13 (10%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
8001_10000 | 20 (8.0%) | 11 (8.8%) | 9 (7.2%) | ||
below_2000 | 46 (18%) | 21 (17%) | 25 (20%) | ||
medication | 250 | 224 (90%) | 112 (90%) | 112 (90%) | >0.999 |
onset_duration | 250 | 15.13 ± 11.18 (0 - 63) | 14.96 ± 11.83 (0 - 56) | 15.29 ± 10.53 (0 - 63) | 0.814 |
onset_age | 250 | 36.04 ± 14.80 (-18 - 72) | 35.72 ± 13.96 (10 - 72) | 36.37 ± 15.65 (-18 - 68) | 0.732 |
diagnosis_schizophrenia | 250 | 50 (20%) | 25 (20%) | 25 (20%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_delusional | 250 | 13 (5.2%) | 7 (5.6%) | 6 (4.8%) | 0.776 |
diagnosis_schizoaffective | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_schizoid | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_transient_psychotic | 250 | 2 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_substance_drug_induced_psychotic | 250 | ||||
no | 250 (100%) | 125 (100%) | 125 (100%) | ||
diagnosis_depression | 250 | 138 (55%) | 69 (55%) | 69 (55%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_bipolar | 250 | 24 (9.6%) | 10 (8.0%) | 14 (11%) | 0.390 |
diagnosis_anxiety | 250 | 87 (35%) | 46 (37%) | 41 (33%) | 0.507 |
diagnosis_phobia | 250 | 10 (4.0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 7 (5.6%) | 0.197 |
diagnosis_personality_disorders | 250 | 3 (1.2%) | 0 (0%) | 3 (2.4%) | 0.247 |
diagnosis_substance_related_addictive | 250 | 1 (0.4%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (0.8%) | >0.999 |
diagnosis_other | 250 | 29 (12%) | 17 (14%) | 12 (9.6%) | 0.323 |
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Table
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 2501 | control, N = 1251 | treatment, N = 1251 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | 250 | 3.14 ± 1.21 (1 - 5) | 3.20 ± 1.20 (1 - 5) | 3.07 ± 1.23 (1 - 5) | 0.406 |
recovery_stage_b | 250 | 17.84 ± 3.03 (4 - 24) | 17.88 ± 3.28 (4 - 24) | 17.80 ± 2.78 (9 - 24) | 0.835 |
ras_confidence | 250 | 29.86 ± 5.62 (9 - 45) | 29.69 ± 5.78 (9 - 45) | 30.02 ± 5.47 (9 - 45) | 0.637 |
ras_willingness | 250 | 11.64 ± 2.11 (3 - 15) | 11.62 ± 2.08 (5 - 15) | 11.66 ± 2.14 (3 - 15) | 0.905 |
ras_goal | 250 | 17.36 ± 3.32 (5 - 25) | 17.18 ± 3.30 (5 - 25) | 17.53 ± 3.33 (5 - 25) | 0.413 |
ras_reliance | 250 | 13.24 ± 2.88 (4 - 20) | 13.14 ± 2.81 (5 - 20) | 13.33 ± 2.95 (4 - 20) | 0.614 |
ras_domination | 250 | 9.76 ± 2.45 (3 - 15) | 9.95 ± 2.43 (3 - 15) | 9.56 ± 2.46 (3 - 15) | 0.206 |
symptom | 250 | 30.85 ± 9.83 (14 - 70) | 31.50 ± 10.44 (14 - 70) | 30.21 ± 9.18 (14 - 56) | 0.301 |
slof_work | 250 | 22.06 ± 4.64 (10 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.44 (12 - 30) | 22.06 ± 4.86 (10 - 30) | 0.989 |
slof_relationship | 250 | 24.92 ± 5.79 (9 - 35) | 24.50 ± 5.77 (9 - 35) | 25.34 ± 5.79 (11 - 35) | 0.252 |
satisfaction | 250 | 20.35 ± 7.25 (5 - 35) | 19.66 ± 7.28 (5 - 35) | 21.03 ± 7.18 (5 - 35) | 0.136 |
mhc_emotional | 250 | 10.82 ± 3.75 (3 - 19) | 10.65 ± 3.79 (3 - 18) | 11.00 ± 3.71 (3 - 19) | 0.459 |
mhc_social | 250 | 15.13 ± 6.02 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 6.09 (5 - 30) | 15.13 ± 5.97 (5 - 30) | >0.999 |
mhc_psychological | 250 | 21.71 ± 6.90 (6 - 36) | 21.55 ± 6.89 (6 - 36) | 21.87 ± 6.93 (6 - 36) | 0.715 |
resilisnce | 250 | 16.56 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 16.18 ± 4.25 (6 - 30) | 16.94 ± 4.61 (6 - 30) | 0.177 |
social_provision | 250 | 13.54 ± 2.75 (5 - 20) | 13.17 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 13.91 ± 2.77 (5 - 20) | 0.032 |
els_value_living | 250 | 16.96 ± 3.18 (5 - 25) | 16.76 ± 3.18 (6 - 25) | 17.15 ± 3.19 (5 - 25) | 0.331 |
els_life_fulfill | 250 | 12.76 ± 3.35 (4 - 20) | 12.41 ± 3.45 (4 - 20) | 13.10 ± 3.21 (4 - 20) | 0.100 |
els | 250 | 29.71 ± 6.03 (9 - 45) | 29.17 ± 6.13 (11 - 45) | 30.26 ± 5.90 (9 - 45) | 0.154 |
social_connect | 250 | 27.27 ± 9.12 (8 - 48) | 27.88 ± 9.05 (8 - 48) | 26.66 ± 9.18 (8 - 48) | 0.293 |
shs_agency | 250 | 14.34 ± 4.99 (3 - 24) | 13.84 ± 5.02 (3 - 24) | 14.85 ± 4.94 (3 - 24) | 0.110 |
shs_pathway | 250 | 15.83 ± 4.19 (3 - 24) | 15.33 ± 4.35 (3 - 24) | 16.34 ± 3.99 (4 - 24) | 0.057 |
shs | 250 | 30.18 ± 8.79 (6 - 48) | 29.17 ± 8.98 (6 - 48) | 31.18 ± 8.51 (7 - 48) | 0.070 |
esteem | 250 | 12.76 ± 1.66 (9 - 20) | 12.80 ± 1.71 (9 - 20) | 12.73 ± 1.60 (10 - 20) | 0.732 |
mlq_search | 250 | 14.72 ± 3.51 (3 - 21) | 14.36 ± 3.58 (3 - 21) | 15.08 ± 3.41 (3 - 21) | 0.105 |
mlq_presence | 250 | 13.38 ± 4.31 (3 - 21) | 13.15 ± 4.26 (3 - 21) | 13.62 ± 4.36 (3 - 21) | 0.396 |
mlq | 250 | 28.10 ± 7.01 (6 - 42) | 27.51 ± 7.05 (6 - 42) | 28.70 ± 6.96 (6 - 42) | 0.183 |
empower | 250 | 19.11 ± 4.47 (6 - 30) | 18.85 ± 4.50 (6 - 30) | 19.38 ± 4.44 (6 - 30) | 0.351 |
ismi_resistance | 250 | 14.36 ± 2.60 (5 - 20) | 14.36 ± 2.52 (6 - 20) | 14.35 ± 2.70 (5 - 20) | 0.981 |
ismi_discrimation | 250 | 11.75 ± 3.10 (5 - 20) | 11.79 ± 3.09 (5 - 20) | 11.70 ± 3.12 (5 - 20) | 0.823 |
sss_affective | 250 | 10.51 ± 3.66 (3 - 18) | 10.40 ± 3.63 (3 - 18) | 10.62 ± 3.71 (3 - 18) | 0.629 |
sss_behavior | 250 | 10.14 ± 3.76 (3 - 18) | 10.18 ± 3.81 (3 - 18) | 10.10 ± 3.72 (3 - 18) | 0.867 |
sss_cognitive | 250 | 8.92 ± 3.84 (3 - 18) | 8.71 ± 3.82 (3 - 18) | 9.12 ± 3.87 (3 - 18) | 0.402 |
sss | 250 | 29.56 ± 10.61 (9 - 54) | 29.29 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 29.84 ± 10.63 (9 - 54) | 0.682 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Plot
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | (Intercept) | 3.20 | 0.109 | 2.99, 3.41 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.128 | 0.154 | -0.430, 0.174 | 0.406 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.029 | 0.133 | -0.233, 0.290 | 0.830 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.179 | 0.192 | -0.198, 0.556 | 0.354 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
recovery_stage_b | (Intercept) | 17.9 | 0.269 | 17.4, 18.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.380 | -0.825, 0.665 | 0.833 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.188 | 0.244 | -0.666, 0.290 | 0.441 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.03 | 0.353 | 0.339, 1.72 | 0.004 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ras_confidence | (Intercept) | 29.7 | 0.503 | 28.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.336 | 0.712 | -1.06, 1.73 | 0.637 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.733 | 0.397 | -0.044, 1.51 | 0.066 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.07 | 0.575 | -0.062, 2.19 | 0.066 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ras_willingness | (Intercept) | 11.6 | 0.183 | 11.3, 12.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.032 | 0.259 | -0.476, 0.540 | 0.902 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.007 | 0.173 | -0.333, 0.347 | 0.968 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.334 | 0.251 | -0.158, 0.826 | 0.184 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
ras_goal | (Intercept) | 17.2 | 0.290 | 16.6, 17.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.344 | 0.410 | -0.459, 1.15 | 0.402 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.447 | 0.254 | -0.050, 0.944 | 0.080 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.431 | 0.368 | -0.290, 1.15 | 0.243 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
ras_reliance | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.263 | 12.6, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.184 | 0.372 | -0.545, 0.913 | 0.621 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.383 | 0.207 | -0.023, 0.788 | 0.066 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.297 | 0.300 | -0.291, 0.886 | 0.323 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
ras_domination | (Intercept) | 9.95 | 0.214 | 9.53, 10.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.392 | 0.303 | -0.986, 0.202 | 0.196 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.052 | 0.208 | -0.356, 0.460 | 0.804 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.840 | 0.302 | 0.249, 1.43 | 0.006 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.016 | ||||
symptom | (Intercept) | 31.5 | 0.882 | 29.8, 33.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.29 | 1.247 | -3.73, 1.16 | 0.302 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.25 | 0.631 | -2.48, -0.010 | 0.050 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.286 | 0.916 | -2.08, 1.51 | 0.755 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
slof_work | (Intercept) | 22.1 | 0.409 | 21.3, 22.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.578 | -1.14, 1.12 | 0.989 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.424 | 0.339 | -0.240, 1.09 | 0.212 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.186 | 0.492 | -0.778, 1.15 | 0.705 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
slof_relationship | (Intercept) | 24.5 | 0.515 | 23.5, 25.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.840 | 0.729 | -0.588, 2.27 | 0.250 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.470 | 0.411 | -0.336, 1.28 | 0.255 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.253 | 0.596 | -0.916, 1.42 | 0.672 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
satisfaction | (Intercept) | 19.7 | 0.641 | 18.4, 20.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.37 | 0.907 | -0.409, 3.15 | 0.132 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.18 | 0.487 | 0.230, 2.14 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.118 | 0.706 | -1.27, 1.50 | 0.867 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
mhc_emotional | (Intercept) | 10.6 | 0.336 | 9.99, 11.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.352 | 0.475 | -0.579, 1.28 | 0.459 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.447 | 0.257 | -0.056, 0.951 | 0.083 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.067 | 0.372 | -0.797, 0.663 | 0.857 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
mhc_social | (Intercept) | 15.1 | 0.544 | 14.1, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.000 | 0.769 | -1.51, 1.51 | 1.00 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.688 | 0.422 | -0.139, 1.51 | 0.104 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.447 | 0.612 | -0.752, 1.65 | 0.465 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
mhc_psychological | (Intercept) | 21.6 | 0.631 | 20.3, 22.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.320 | 0.892 | -1.43, 2.07 | 0.720 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.12 | 0.470 | 0.203, 2.04 | 0.018 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.214 | 0.682 | -1.55, 1.12 | 0.754 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
resilisnce | (Intercept) | 16.2 | 0.388 | 15.4, 16.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.760 | 0.549 | -0.316, 1.84 | 0.167 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.691 | 0.341 | 0.022, 1.36 | 0.044 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.497 | 0.494 | -0.471, 1.47 | 0.315 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.024 | ||||
social_provision | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.250 | 12.7, 13.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.744 | 0.353 | 0.052, 1.44 | 0.036 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.057 | 0.203 | -0.455, 0.340 | 0.777 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.420 | 0.294 | -0.156, 0.997 | 0.154 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.029 | ||||
els_value_living | (Intercept) | 16.8 | 0.286 | 16.2, 17.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.392 | 0.404 | -0.400, 1.18 | 0.333 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.328 | 0.228 | -0.119, 0.774 | 0.152 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.334 | 0.330 | -0.314, 0.981 | 0.313 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
els_life_fulfill | (Intercept) | 12.4 | 0.294 | 11.8, 13.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.696 | 0.416 | -0.119, 1.51 | 0.095 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.330 | 0.217 | -0.096, 0.755 | 0.131 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.183 | 0.315 | -0.434, 0.800 | 0.562 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
els | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.540 | 28.1, 30.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.09 | 0.764 | -0.409, 2.58 | 0.155 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.652 | 0.380 | -0.093, 1.40 | 0.088 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.531 | 0.552 | -0.551, 1.61 | 0.338 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
social_connect | (Intercept) | 27.9 | 0.819 | 26.3, 29.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -1.22 | 1.158 | -3.49, 1.05 | 0.295 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.717 | 0.608 | -1.91, 0.475 | 0.240 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.42 | 0.882 | -3.15, 0.304 | 0.108 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
shs_agency | (Intercept) | 13.8 | 0.445 | 13.0, 14.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.629 | -0.225, 2.24 | 0.110 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.259 | 0.335 | -0.398, 0.917 | 0.440 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.688 | 0.487 | -0.265, 1.64 | 0.159 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.021 | ||||
shs_pathway | (Intercept) | 15.3 | 0.361 | 14.6, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.01 | 0.511 | 0.007, 2.01 | 0.049 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.550 | 0.294 | -0.026, 1.13 | 0.063 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.295 | 0.426 | -0.540, 1.13 | 0.489 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
shs | (Intercept) | 29.2 | 0.767 | 27.7, 30.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 2.02 | 1.085 | -0.111, 4.14 | 0.064 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.805 | 0.571 | -0.315, 1.92 | 0.160 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.993 | 0.829 | -0.632, 2.62 | 0.233 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.026 | ||||
esteem | (Intercept) | 12.8 | 0.142 | 12.5, 13.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.072 | 0.201 | -0.467, 0.323 | 0.721 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.140 | 0.158 | -0.449, 0.169 | 0.376 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.176 | 0.228 | -0.271, 0.623 | 0.441 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
mlq_search | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.309 | 13.8, 15.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.720 | 0.436 | -0.135, 1.58 | 0.100 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.663 | 0.305 | 0.066, 1.26 | 0.031 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.686 | 0.441 | -1.55, 0.179 | 0.122 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
mlq_presence | (Intercept) | 13.2 | 0.377 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.464 | 0.534 | -0.582, 1.51 | 0.385 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.614 | 0.326 | -0.025, 1.25 | 0.061 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.249 | 0.473 | -0.678, 1.18 | 0.600 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
mlq | (Intercept) | 27.5 | 0.617 | 26.3, 28.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 1.18 | 0.873 | -0.526, 2.89 | 0.176 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 1.27 | 0.546 | 0.204, 2.35 | 0.021 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.421 | 0.792 | -1.97, 1.13 | 0.595 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
empower | (Intercept) | 18.8 | 0.404 | 18.1, 19.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.528 | 0.571 | -0.591, 1.65 | 0.356 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.788 | 0.325 | 0.150, 1.43 | 0.016 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.155 | 0.472 | -0.769, 1.08 | 0.743 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
ismi_resistance | (Intercept) | 14.4 | 0.223 | 13.9, 14.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.008 | 0.315 | -0.626, 0.610 | 0.980 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.206 | 0.232 | -0.248, 0.660 | 0.375 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.492 | 0.335 | -0.165, 1.15 | 0.144 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.012 | ||||
ismi_discrimation | (Intercept) | 11.8 | 0.276 | 11.3, 12.3 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.088 | 0.390 | -0.852, 0.676 | 0.822 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.411 | 0.269 | -0.938, 0.117 | 0.129 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.449 | 0.390 | -1.21, 0.315 | 0.250 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.013 | ||||
sss_affective | (Intercept) | 10.4 | 0.324 | 9.76, 11.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.224 | 0.458 | -0.675, 1.12 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.298 | 0.247 | -0.782, 0.186 | 0.229 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.722 | 0.358 | -1.42, -0.020 | 0.045 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
sss_behavior | (Intercept) | 10.2 | 0.333 | 9.52, 10.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.080 | 0.471 | -1.00, 0.842 | 0.865 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.449 | 0.255 | -0.948, 0.050 | 0.079 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.395 | 0.369 | -1.12, 0.329 | 0.286 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.009 | ||||
sss_cognitive | (Intercept) | 8.71 | 0.335 | 8.06, 9.37 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.408 | 0.474 | -0.520, 1.34 | 0.390 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.238 | 0.254 | -0.736, 0.261 | 0.351 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.714 | 0.369 | -1.44, 0.009 | 0.054 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
sss | (Intercept) | 29.3 | 0.935 | 27.5, 31.1 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.552 | 1.322 | -2.04, 3.14 | 0.677 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.00 | 0.640 | -2.26, 0.253 | 0.119 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.76 | 0.930 | -3.59, 0.058 | 0.059 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
recovery_stage_a
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_a with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_a ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.34) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.99e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.20 (95% CI [2.99, 3.41], t(443) = 29.40, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.17], t(443) = -0.83, p = 0.406; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.14])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.29], t(443) = 0.22, p = 0.830; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.56], t(443) = 0.93, p = 0.353; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
recovery_stage_b
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict recovery_stage_b with group and time_point (formula: recovery_stage_b ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.88 (95% CI [17.35, 18.41], t(443) = 66.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.82, 0.66], t(443) = -0.21, p = 0.833; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.67, 0.29], t(443) = -0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.03, 95% CI [0.34, 1.72], t(443) = 2.92, p = 0.003; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.11, 0.58])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_confidence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_confidence with group and time_point (formula: ras_confidence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.69 (95% CI [28.70, 30.67], t(443) = 58.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-1.06, 1.73], t(443) = 0.47, p = 0.637; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.73, 95% CI [-0.04, 1.51], t(443) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.87e-03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.07, 95% CI [-0.06, 2.19], t(443) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_willingness
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_willingness with group and time_point (formula: ras_willingness ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.12e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.62 (95% CI [11.26, 11.98], t(443) = 63.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.54], t(443) = 0.12, p = 0.902; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 6.97e-03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.35], t(443) = 0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = 3.43e-03, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.17])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.83], t(443) = 1.33, p = 0.183; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_goal
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_goal with group and time_point (formula: ras_goal ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 17.18 (95% CI [16.62, 17.75], t(443) = 59.29, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.34, 95% CI [-0.46, 1.15], t(443) = 0.84, p = 0.401; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.94], t(443) = 1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.29, 1.15], t(443) = 1.17, p = 0.241; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.36])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_reliance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_reliance with group and time_point (formula: ras_reliance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.14 (95% CI [12.63, 13.66], t(443) = 49.97, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.55, 0.91], t(443) = 0.49, p = 0.621; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.79], t(443) = 1.85, p = 0.064; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-7.82e-03, 0.27])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.89], t(443) = 0.99, p = 0.322; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ras_domination
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ras_domination with group and time_point (formula: ras_domination ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.60) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 9.95 (95% CI [9.53, 10.37], t(443) = 46.48, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.20], t(443) = -1.29, p = 0.196; Std. beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.08])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.46], t(443) = 0.25, p = 0.804; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [0.25, 1.43], t(443) = 2.79, p = 0.005; Std. beta = 0.35, 95% CI [0.10, 0.60])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
symptom
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict symptom with group and time_point (formula: symptom ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 31.50 (95% CI [29.77, 33.22], t(443) = 35.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.73, 1.16], t(443) = -1.03, p = 0.302; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.12])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -1.25, 95% CI [-2.48, -9.80e-03], t(443) = -1.98, p = 0.048; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.25, -9.98e-04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-2.08, 1.51], t(443) = -0.31, p = 0.755; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.15])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_work
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_work with group and time_point (formula: slof_work ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.27e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 22.06 (95% CI [21.26, 22.87], t(443) = 53.98, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.12], t(443) = -0.01, p = 0.989; Std. beta = -1.75e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.24, 1.09], t(443) = 1.25, p = 0.211; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.78, 1.15], t(443) = 0.38, p = 0.705; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
slof_relationship
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict slof_relationship with group and time_point (formula: slof_relationship ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.25e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 24.50 (95% CI [23.49, 25.51], t(443) = 47.56, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.84, 95% CI [-0.59, 2.27], t(443) = 1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.47, 95% CI [-0.34, 1.28], t(443) = 1.14, p = 0.253; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.92, 1.42], t(443) = 0.42, p = 0.672; Std. beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.25])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
satisfaction
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict satisfaction with group and time_point (formula: satisfaction ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.66 (95% CI [18.41, 20.92], t(443) = 30.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.37, 95% CI [-0.41, 3.15], t(443) = 1.51, p = 0.131; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [0.23, 2.14], t(443) = 2.43, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [0.03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.27, 1.50], t(443) = 0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.18, 0.21])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_emotional
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_emotional with group and time_point (formula: mhc_emotional ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.73e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.65 (95% CI [9.99, 11.31], t(443) = 31.72, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.28], t(443) = 0.74, p = 0.458; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.34])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.95], t(443) = 1.74, p = 0.081; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.80, 0.66], t(443) = -0.18, p = 0.857; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.18])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_social
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_social with group and time_point (formula: mhc_social ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.74) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.97e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.13 (95% CI [14.06, 16.19], t(443) = 27.81, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -4.34e-13, 95% CI [-1.51, 1.51], t(443) = -5.64e-13, p > .999; Std. beta = 5.66e-16, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.25])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.51], t(443) = 1.63, p = 0.103; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.45, 95% CI [-0.75, 1.65], t(443) = 0.73, p = 0.465; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mhc_psychological
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mhc_psychological with group and time_point (formula: mhc_psychological ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.40e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 21.55 (95% CI [20.32, 22.79], t(443) = 34.18, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-1.43, 2.07], t(443) = 0.36, p = 0.720; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.12, 95% CI [0.20, 2.04], t(443) = 2.39, p = 0.017; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [0.03, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-1.55, 1.12], t(443) = -0.31, p = 0.754; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
resilisnce
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict resilisnce with group and time_point (formula: resilisnce ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.18 (95% CI [15.42, 16.94], t(443) = 41.67, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.76, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.84], t(443) = 1.38, p = 0.166; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [0.02, 1.36], t(443) = 2.02, p = 0.043; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [5.03e-03, 0.31])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.50, 95% CI [-0.47, 1.47], t(443) = 1.01, p = 0.314; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_provision
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_provision with group and time_point (formula: social_provision ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.17 (95% CI [12.68, 13.66], t(443) = 52.73, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.74, 95% CI [0.05, 1.44], t(443) = 2.11, p = 0.035; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [0.02, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.34], t(443) = -0.28, p = 0.777; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.12])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.42, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.00], t(443) = 1.43, p = 0.153; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_value_living
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_value_living with group and time_point (formula: els_value_living ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.73) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 16.76 (95% CI [16.20, 17.32], t(443) = 58.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.39, 95% CI [-0.40, 1.18], t(443) = 0.97, p = 0.332; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.77], t(443) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.24])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.98], t(443) = 1.01, p = 0.312; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.31])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els_life_fulfill
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els_life_fulfill with group and time_point (formula: els_life_fulfill ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.41 (95% CI [11.83, 12.98], t(443) = 42.19, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-0.12, 1.51], t(443) = 1.67, p = 0.094; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.75], t(443) = 1.52, p = 0.129; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.43, 0.80], t(443) = 0.58, p = 0.561; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
els
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict els with group and time_point (formula: els ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.79) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [28.11, 30.23], t(443) = 54.02, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.09, 95% CI [-0.41, 2.58], t(443) = 1.42, p = 0.154; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.65, 95% CI [-0.09, 1.40], t(443) = 1.71, p = 0.086; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.23])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.55, 1.61], t(443) = 0.96, p = 0.336; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.27])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
social_connect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict social_connect with group and time_point (formula: social_connect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.88 (95% CI [26.27, 29.49], t(443) = 34.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.22, 95% CI [-3.49, 1.05], t(443) = -1.05, p = 0.294; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.38, 0.11])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.91, 0.47], t(443) = -1.18, p = 0.238; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.42, 95% CI [-3.15, 0.30], t(443) = -1.62, p = 0.106; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_agency
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_agency with group and time_point (formula: shs_agency ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.76) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.84 (95% CI [12.97, 14.71], t(443) = 31.10, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 2.24], t(443) = 1.60, p = 0.109; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.45])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.92], t(443) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.18])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.69, 95% CI [-0.27, 1.64], t(443) = 1.41, p = 0.157; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-0.05, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs_pathway
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs_pathway with group and time_point (formula: shs_pathway ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.33 (95% CI [14.62, 16.04], t(443) = 42.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.01, 95% CI [7.29e-03, 2.01], t(443) = 1.97, p = 0.048; Std. beta = 0.25, 95% CI [1.79e-03, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.13], t(443) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.14, 95% CI [-6.39e-03, 0.28])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.30, 95% CI [-0.54, 1.13], t(443) = 0.69, p = 0.488; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
shs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict shs with group and time_point (formula: shs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.77) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.17 (95% CI [27.66, 30.67], t(443) = 38.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.02, 95% CI [-0.11, 4.14], t(443) = 1.86, p = 0.063; Std. beta = 0.23, 95% CI [-0.01, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.80, 95% CI [-0.31, 1.92], t(443) = 1.41, p = 0.159; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.99, 95% CI [-0.63, 2.62], t(443) = 1.20, p = 0.231; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.30])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
esteem
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict esteem with group and time_point (formula: esteem ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.46) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.05e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.80 (95% CI [12.52, 13.08], t(443) = 89.88, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.47, 0.32], t(443) = -0.36, p = 0.721; Std. beta = -0.05, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.20])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.17], t(443) = -0.89, p = 0.375; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.11])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.62], t(443) = 0.77, p = 0.440; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_search
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_search with group and time_point (formula: mlq_search ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.14e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.76, 14.96], t(443) = 46.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-0.14, 1.58], t(443) = 1.65, p = 0.099; Std. beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.66, 95% CI [0.07, 1.26], t(443) = 2.18, p = 0.030; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [0.02, 0.36])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.69, 95% CI [-1.55, 0.18], t(443) = -1.55, p = 0.120; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.05])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq_presence
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq_presence with group and time_point (formula: mlq_presence ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.15 (95% CI [12.41, 13.89], t(443) = 34.84, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.46, 95% CI [-0.58, 1.51], t(443) = 0.87, p = 0.385; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.61, 95% CI [-0.03, 1.25], t(443) = 1.88, p = 0.060; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-5.94e-03, 0.30])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-0.68, 1.18], t(443) = 0.53, p = 0.599; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.28])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
mlq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict mlq with group and time_point (formula: mlq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 27.51 (95% CI [26.30, 28.72], t(443) = 44.59, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.18, 95% CI [-0.53, 2.89], t(443) = 1.36, p = 0.175; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 1.27, 95% CI [0.20, 2.35], t(443) = 2.33, p = 0.020; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.34])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.97, 1.13], t(443) = -0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
empower
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict empower with group and time_point (formula: empower ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.72) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 18.85 (95% CI [18.06, 19.64], t(443) = 46.68, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-0.59, 1.65], t(443) = 0.92, p = 0.355; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.13, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically significant and positive (beta = 0.79, 95% CI [0.15, 1.43], t(443) = 2.42, p = 0.015; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [0.03, 0.32])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.77, 1.08], t(443) = 0.33, p = 0.742; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.24])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_resistance
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_resistance with group and time_point (formula: ismi_resistance ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.53) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.36 (95% CI [13.92, 14.80], t(443) = 64.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -8.00e-03, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.61], t(443) = -0.03, p = 0.980; Std. beta = -3.21e-03, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.24])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.66], t(443) = 0.89, p = 0.374; Std. beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.16, 1.15], t(443) = 1.47, p = 0.142; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.46])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ismi_discrimation
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ismi_discrimation with group and time_point (formula: ismi_discrimation ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.79 (95% CI [11.25, 12.33], t(443) = 42.76, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.68], t(443) = -0.23, p = 0.821; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.41, 95% CI [-0.94, 0.12], t(443) = -1.53, p = 0.127; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.04])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-1.21, 0.31], t(443) = -1.15, p = 0.249; Std. beta = -0.15, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.10])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_affective
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_affective with group and time_point (formula: sss_affective ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.40 (95% CI [9.76, 11.04], t(443) = 32.08, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.22, 95% CI [-0.67, 1.12], t(443) = 0.49, p = 0.625; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.31])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.78, 0.19], t(443) = -1.21, p = 0.228; Std. beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically significant and negative (beta = -0.72, 95% CI [-1.42, -0.02], t(443) = -2.02, p = 0.044; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.39, -5.45e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_behavior
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_behavior with group and time_point (formula: sss_behavior ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.94e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 10.18 (95% CI [9.52, 10.83], t(443) = 30.58, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.08, 95% CI [-1.00, 0.84], t(443) = -0.17, p = 0.865; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.23])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.45, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.05], t(443) = -1.76, p = 0.078; Std. beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.12, 0.33], t(443) = -1.07, p = 0.285; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.09])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss_cognitive
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss_cognitive with group and time_point (formula: sss_cognitive ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.75) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 8.39e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 8.71 (95% CI [8.06, 9.37], t(443) = 26.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.41, 95% CI [-0.52, 1.34], t(443) = 0.86, p = 0.389; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.36])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.26], t(443) = -0.94, p = 0.350; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.71, 95% CI [-1.44, 9.15e-03], t(443) = -1.94, p = 0.053; Std. beta = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.39, 2.46e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
sss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sss with group and time_point (formula: sss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included mobile as random effect (formula: ~1 | mobile). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.80) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 9.54e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 29.29 (95% CI [27.46, 31.12], t(443) = 31.32, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.55, 95% CI [-2.04, 3.14], t(443) = 0.42, p = 0.676; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.20, 0.30])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.00, 95% CI [-2.26, 0.25], t(443) = -1.56, p = 0.118; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.22, 0.02])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.76, 95% CI [-3.59, 0.06], t(443) = -1.90, p = 0.058; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.34, 5.58e-03])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
recovery_stage_a | null | 3 | 1,431.169 | 1,443.490 | -712.584 | 1,425.169 | |||
recovery_stage_a | random | 6 | 1,434.699 | 1,459.341 | -711.350 | 1,422.699 | 2.470 | 3 | 0.481 |
recovery_stage_b | null | 3 | 2,169.365 | 2,181.686 | -1,081.683 | 2,163.365 | |||
recovery_stage_b | random | 6 | 2,163.370 | 2,188.012 | -1,075.685 | 2,151.370 | 11.995 | 3 | 0.007 |
ras_confidence | null | 3 | 2,696.182 | 2,708.503 | -1,345.091 | 2,690.182 | |||
ras_confidence | random | 6 | 2,679.903 | 2,704.545 | -1,333.951 | 2,667.903 | 22.279 | 3 | 0.000 |
ras_willingness | null | 3 | 1,831.223 | 1,843.544 | -912.611 | 1,825.223 | |||
ras_willingness | random | 6 | 1,833.202 | 1,857.844 | -910.601 | 1,821.202 | 4.021 | 3 | 0.259 |
ras_goal | null | 3 | 2,228.846 | 2,241.167 | -1,111.423 | 2,222.846 | |||
ras_goal | random | 6 | 2,219.553 | 2,244.195 | -1,103.776 | 2,207.553 | 15.293 | 3 | 0.002 |
ras_reliance | null | 3 | 2,104.263 | 2,116.584 | -1,049.132 | 2,098.263 | |||
ras_reliance | random | 6 | 2,096.692 | 2,121.334 | -1,042.346 | 2,084.692 | 13.571 | 3 | 0.004 |
ras_domination | null | 3 | 1,991.715 | 2,004.036 | -992.858 | 1,985.715 | |||
ras_domination | random | 6 | 1,981.274 | 2,005.916 | -984.637 | 1,969.274 | 16.441 | 3 | 0.001 |
symptom | null | 3 | 3,154.097 | 3,166.418 | -1,574.048 | 3,148.097 | |||
symptom | random | 6 | 3,149.694 | 3,174.336 | -1,568.847 | 3,137.694 | 10.403 | 3 | 0.015 |
slof_work | null | 3 | 2,509.191 | 2,521.512 | -1,251.596 | 2,503.191 | |||
slof_work | random | 6 | 2,510.670 | 2,535.312 | -1,249.335 | 2,498.670 | 4.521 | 3 | 0.210 |
slof_relationship | null | 3 | 2,705.081 | 2,717.402 | -1,349.541 | 2,699.081 | |||
slof_relationship | random | 6 | 2,705.189 | 2,729.831 | -1,346.594 | 2,693.189 | 5.892 | 3 | 0.117 |
satisfaction | null | 3 | 2,892.917 | 2,905.238 | -1,443.458 | 2,886.917 | |||
satisfaction | random | 6 | 2,884.302 | 2,908.944 | -1,436.151 | 2,872.302 | 14.615 | 3 | 0.002 |
mhc_emotional | null | 3 | 2,305.342 | 2,317.663 | -1,149.671 | 2,299.342 | |||
mhc_emotional | random | 6 | 2,305.888 | 2,330.530 | -1,146.944 | 2,293.888 | 5.454 | 3 | 0.141 |
mhc_social | null | 3 | 2,747.273 | 2,759.594 | -1,370.637 | 2,741.273 | |||
mhc_social | random | 6 | 2,744.183 | 2,768.825 | -1,366.092 | 2,732.183 | 9.090 | 3 | 0.028 |
mhc_psychological | null | 3 | 2,865.890 | 2,878.211 | -1,429.945 | 2,859.890 | |||
mhc_psychological | random | 6 | 2,862.892 | 2,887.534 | -1,425.446 | 2,850.892 | 8.998 | 3 | 0.029 |
resilisnce | null | 3 | 2,495.413 | 2,507.734 | -1,244.707 | 2,489.413 | |||
resilisnce | random | 6 | 2,483.305 | 2,507.947 | -1,235.653 | 2,471.305 | 18.108 | 3 | 0.000 |
social_provision | null | 3 | 2,065.299 | 2,077.620 | -1,029.649 | 2,059.299 | |||
social_provision | random | 6 | 2,060.838 | 2,085.480 | -1,024.419 | 2,048.838 | 10.461 | 3 | 0.015 |
els_value_living | null | 3 | 2,180.549 | 2,192.870 | -1,087.275 | 2,174.549 | |||
els_value_living | random | 6 | 2,175.184 | 2,199.826 | -1,081.592 | 2,163.184 | 11.365 | 3 | 0.010 |
els_life_fulfill | null | 3 | 2,179.503 | 2,191.824 | -1,086.752 | 2,173.503 | |||
els_life_fulfill | random | 6 | 2,174.584 | 2,199.226 | -1,081.292 | 2,162.584 | 10.919 | 3 | 0.012 |
els | null | 3 | 2,712.104 | 2,724.425 | -1,353.052 | 2,706.104 | |||
els | random | 6 | 2,703.638 | 2,728.280 | -1,345.819 | 2,691.638 | 14.466 | 3 | 0.002 |
social_connect | null | 3 | 3,105.338 | 3,117.660 | -1,549.669 | 3,099.338 | |||
social_connect | random | 6 | 3,096.417 | 3,121.059 | -1,542.208 | 3,084.417 | 14.922 | 3 | 0.002 |
shs_agency | null | 3 | 2,560.001 | 2,572.322 | -1,277.000 | 2,554.001 | |||
shs_agency | random | 6 | 2,553.807 | 2,578.450 | -1,270.904 | 2,541.807 | 12.193 | 3 | 0.007 |
shs_pathway | null | 3 | 2,402.528 | 2,414.849 | -1,198.264 | 2,396.528 | |||
shs_pathway | random | 6 | 2,392.455 | 2,417.097 | -1,190.227 | 2,380.455 | 16.073 | 3 | 0.001 |
shs | null | 3 | 3,048.940 | 3,061.261 | -1,521.470 | 3,042.940 | |||
shs | random | 6 | 3,038.955 | 3,063.597 | -1,513.477 | 3,026.955 | 15.985 | 3 | 0.001 |
esteem | null | 3 | 1,647.003 | 1,659.324 | -820.501 | 1,641.003 | |||
esteem | random | 6 | 1,652.161 | 1,676.803 | -820.080 | 1,640.161 | 0.842 | 3 | 0.839 |
mlq_search | null | 3 | 2,314.021 | 2,326.342 | -1,154.010 | 2,308.021 | |||
mlq_search | random | 6 | 2,314.143 | 2,338.785 | -1,151.071 | 2,302.143 | 5.878 | 3 | 0.118 |
mlq_presence | null | 3 | 2,457.502 | 2,469.823 | -1,225.751 | 2,451.502 | |||
mlq_presence | random | 6 | 2,452.612 | 2,477.254 | -1,220.306 | 2,440.612 | 10.890 | 3 | 0.012 |
mlq | null | 3 | 2,904.937 | 2,917.258 | -1,449.468 | 2,898.937 | |||
mlq | random | 6 | 2,901.916 | 2,926.559 | -1,444.958 | 2,889.916 | 9.021 | 3 | 0.029 |
empower | null | 3 | 2,497.732 | 2,510.053 | -1,245.866 | 2,491.732 | |||
empower | random | 6 | 2,489.470 | 2,514.112 | -1,238.735 | 2,477.470 | 14.262 | 3 | 0.003 |
ismi_resistance | null | 3 | 2,040.742 | 2,053.063 | -1,017.371 | 2,034.742 | |||
ismi_resistance | random | 6 | 2,037.353 | 2,061.995 | -1,012.677 | 2,025.353 | 9.388 | 3 | 0.025 |
ismi_discrimation | null | 3 | 2,215.457 | 2,227.778 | -1,104.729 | 2,209.457 | |||
ismi_discrimation | random | 6 | 2,209.500 | 2,234.142 | -1,098.750 | 2,197.500 | 11.957 | 3 | 0.008 |
sss_affective | null | 3 | 2,283.818 | 2,296.139 | -1,138.909 | 2,277.818 | |||
sss_affective | random | 6 | 2,273.281 | 2,297.923 | -1,130.640 | 2,261.281 | 16.537 | 3 | 0.001 |
sss_behavior | null | 3 | 2,305.222 | 2,317.543 | -1,149.611 | 2,299.222 | |||
sss_behavior | random | 6 | 2,298.130 | 2,322.772 | -1,143.065 | 2,286.130 | 13.092 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss_cognitive | null | 3 | 2,308.801 | 2,321.122 | -1,151.401 | 2,302.801 | |||
sss_cognitive | random | 6 | 2,301.357 | 2,325.999 | -1,144.678 | 2,289.357 | 13.445 | 3 | 0.004 |
sss | null | 3 | 3,199.522 | 3,211.843 | -1,596.761 | 3,193.522 | |||
sss | random | 6 | 3,186.740 | 3,211.382 | -1,587.370 | 3,174.740 | 18.782 | 3 | 0.000 |
Post hoc analysis
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
recovery_stage_a | 1st | 125 | 3.20 ± 1.22 | 125 | 3.07 ± 1.22 | 0.406 | 0.129 | ||
recovery_stage_a | 2nd | 105 | 3.23 ± 1.21 | -0.029 | 94 | 3.28 ± 1.20 | -0.209 | 0.767 | -0.051 |
recovery_stage_b | 1st | 125 | 17.88 ± 3.00 | 125 | 17.80 ± 3.00 | 0.833 | 0.045 | ||
recovery_stage_b | 2nd | 105 | 17.69 ± 2.90 | 0.105 | 94 | 18.64 ± 2.85 | -0.471 | 0.020 | -0.531 |
ras_confidence | 1st | 125 | 29.69 ± 5.63 | 125 | 30.02 ± 5.63 | 0.637 | -0.116 | ||
ras_confidence | 2nd | 105 | 30.42 ± 5.38 | -0.252 | 94 | 31.82 ± 5.24 | -0.619 | 0.064 | -0.482 |
ras_willingness | 1st | 125 | 11.62 ± 2.05 | 125 | 11.66 ± 2.05 | 0.902 | -0.025 | ||
ras_willingness | 2nd | 105 | 11.63 ± 1.99 | -0.005 | 94 | 12.00 ± 1.95 | -0.267 | 0.191 | -0.287 |
ras_goal | 1st | 125 | 17.18 ± 3.24 | 125 | 17.53 ± 3.24 | 0.402 | -0.185 | ||
ras_goal | 2nd | 105 | 17.63 ± 3.12 | -0.240 | 94 | 18.41 ± 3.06 | -0.471 | 0.078 | -0.416 |
ras_reliance | 1st | 125 | 13.14 ± 2.94 | 125 | 13.33 ± 2.94 | 0.621 | -0.121 | ||
ras_reliance | 2nd | 105 | 13.53 ± 2.81 | -0.252 | 94 | 14.01 ± 2.74 | -0.448 | 0.223 | -0.317 |
ras_domination | 1st | 125 | 9.95 ± 2.39 | 125 | 9.56 ± 2.39 | 0.196 | 0.255 | ||
ras_domination | 2nd | 105 | 10.00 ± 2.33 | -0.034 | 94 | 10.45 ± 2.29 | -0.581 | 0.172 | -0.292 |
symptom | 1st | 125 | 31.50 ± 9.86 | 125 | 30.21 ± 9.86 | 0.302 | 0.279 | ||
symptom | 2nd | 105 | 30.25 ± 9.36 | 0.270 | 94 | 28.67 ± 9.08 | 0.332 | 0.230 | 0.341 |
slof_work | 1st | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 125 | 22.06 ± 4.57 | 0.989 | 0.003 | ||
slof_work | 2nd | 105 | 22.49 ± 4.39 | -0.171 | 94 | 22.67 ± 4.28 | -0.245 | 0.772 | -0.072 |
slof_relationship | 1st | 125 | 24.50 ± 5.76 | 125 | 25.34 ± 5.76 | 0.250 | -0.279 | ||
slof_relationship | 2nd | 105 | 24.97 ± 5.51 | -0.156 | 94 | 26.07 ± 5.37 | -0.240 | 0.158 | -0.363 |
satisfaction | 1st | 125 | 19.66 ± 7.17 | 125 | 21.03 ± 7.17 | 0.132 | -0.384 | ||
satisfaction | 2nd | 105 | 20.85 ± 6.84 | -0.332 | 94 | 22.33 ± 6.65 | -0.366 | 0.121 | -0.417 |
mhc_emotional | 1st | 125 | 10.65 ± 3.75 | 125 | 11.00 ± 3.75 | 0.459 | -0.187 | ||
mhc_emotional | 2nd | 105 | 11.10 ± 3.58 | -0.238 | 94 | 11.38 ± 3.48 | -0.202 | 0.570 | -0.152 |
mhc_social | 1st | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.08 | 125 | 15.13 ± 6.08 | 1.000 | 0.000 | ||
mhc_social | 2nd | 105 | 15.82 ± 5.81 | -0.223 | 94 | 16.26 ± 5.65 | -0.368 | 0.583 | -0.145 |
mhc_psychological | 1st | 125 | 21.55 ± 7.05 | 125 | 21.87 ± 7.05 | 0.720 | -0.093 | ||
mhc_psychological | 2nd | 105 | 22.68 ± 6.72 | -0.327 | 94 | 22.78 ± 6.52 | -0.265 | 0.910 | -0.031 |
resilisnce | 1st | 125 | 16.18 ± 4.34 | 125 | 16.94 ± 4.34 | 0.167 | -0.303 | ||
resilisnce | 2nd | 105 | 16.87 ± 4.18 | -0.276 | 94 | 18.12 ± 4.10 | -0.474 | 0.033 | -0.502 |
social_provision | 1st | 125 | 13.17 ± 2.79 | 125 | 13.91 ± 2.79 | 0.036 | -0.500 | ||
social_provision | 2nd | 105 | 13.11 ± 2.68 | 0.039 | 94 | 14.27 ± 2.61 | -0.244 | 0.002 | -0.783 |
els_value_living | 1st | 125 | 16.76 ± 3.19 | 125 | 17.15 ± 3.19 | 0.333 | -0.235 | ||
els_value_living | 2nd | 105 | 17.09 ± 3.06 | -0.196 | 94 | 17.81 ± 2.98 | -0.397 | 0.091 | -0.435 |
els_life_fulfill | 1st | 125 | 12.41 ± 3.29 | 125 | 13.10 ± 3.29 | 0.095 | -0.438 | ||
els_life_fulfill | 2nd | 105 | 12.74 ± 3.13 | -0.208 | 94 | 13.62 ± 3.04 | -0.323 | 0.045 | -0.554 |
els | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 6.04 | 125 | 30.26 ± 6.04 | 0.155 | -0.391 | ||
els | 2nd | 105 | 29.82 ± 5.73 | -0.235 | 94 | 31.44 ± 5.55 | -0.425 | 0.044 | -0.582 |
social_connect | 1st | 125 | 27.88 ± 9.16 | 125 | 26.66 ± 9.16 | 0.295 | 0.273 | ||
social_connect | 2nd | 105 | 27.16 ± 8.72 | 0.161 | 94 | 24.52 ± 8.47 | 0.482 | 0.031 | 0.594 |
shs_agency | 1st | 125 | 13.84 ± 4.97 | 125 | 14.85 ± 4.97 | 0.110 | -0.411 | ||
shs_agency | 2nd | 105 | 14.10 ± 4.74 | -0.106 | 94 | 15.80 ± 4.61 | -0.386 | 0.011 | -0.691 |
shs_pathway | 1st | 125 | 15.33 ± 4.04 | 125 | 16.34 ± 4.04 | 0.049 | -0.468 | ||
shs_pathway | 2nd | 105 | 15.88 ± 3.87 | -0.255 | 94 | 17.18 ± 3.77 | -0.392 | 0.017 | -0.605 |
shs | 1st | 125 | 29.17 ± 8.58 | 125 | 31.18 ± 8.58 | 0.064 | -0.482 | ||
shs | 2nd | 105 | 29.97 ± 8.17 | -0.193 | 94 | 32.98 ± 7.94 | -0.430 | 0.009 | -0.720 |
esteem | 1st | 125 | 12.80 ± 1.59 | 125 | 12.73 ± 1.59 | 0.721 | 0.062 | ||
esteem | 2nd | 105 | 12.66 ± 1.57 | 0.120 | 94 | 12.76 ± 1.55 | -0.031 | 0.639 | -0.089 |
mlq_search | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 3.45 | 125 | 15.08 ± 3.45 | 0.100 | -0.320 | ||
mlq_search | 2nd | 105 | 15.02 ± 3.36 | -0.295 | 94 | 15.06 ± 3.31 | 0.010 | 0.942 | -0.015 |
mlq_presence | 1st | 125 | 13.15 ± 4.22 | 125 | 13.62 ± 4.22 | 0.385 | -0.194 | ||
mlq_presence | 2nd | 105 | 13.77 ± 4.06 | -0.257 | 94 | 14.48 ± 3.97 | -0.360 | 0.212 | -0.298 |
mlq | 1st | 125 | 27.51 ± 6.90 | 125 | 28.70 ± 6.90 | 0.176 | -0.295 | ||
mlq | 2nd | 105 | 28.79 ± 6.65 | -0.318 | 94 | 29.55 ± 6.52 | -0.213 | 0.415 | -0.190 |
empower | 1st | 125 | 18.85 ± 4.51 | 125 | 19.38 ± 4.51 | 0.356 | -0.222 | ||
empower | 2nd | 105 | 19.64 ± 4.32 | -0.331 | 94 | 20.32 ± 4.21 | -0.396 | 0.260 | -0.287 |
ismi_resistance | 1st | 125 | 14.36 ± 2.49 | 125 | 14.35 ± 2.49 | 0.980 | 0.005 | ||
ismi_resistance | 2nd | 105 | 14.57 ± 2.44 | -0.120 | 94 | 15.05 ± 2.41 | -0.408 | 0.160 | -0.283 |
ismi_discrimation | 1st | 125 | 11.79 ± 3.08 | 125 | 11.70 ± 3.08 | 0.822 | 0.044 | ||
ismi_discrimation | 2nd | 105 | 11.38 ± 3.00 | 0.207 | 94 | 10.84 ± 2.95 | 0.433 | 0.204 | 0.271 |
sss_affective | 1st | 125 | 10.40 ± 3.62 | 125 | 10.62 ± 3.62 | 0.626 | -0.124 | ||
sss_affective | 2nd | 105 | 10.10 ± 3.46 | 0.165 | 94 | 9.60 ± 3.36 | 0.564 | 0.304 | 0.276 |
sss_behavior | 1st | 125 | 10.18 ± 3.72 | 125 | 10.10 ± 3.72 | 0.865 | 0.043 | ||
sss_behavior | 2nd | 105 | 9.73 ± 3.55 | 0.241 | 94 | 9.25 ± 3.45 | 0.453 | 0.340 | 0.255 |
sss_cognitive | 1st | 125 | 8.71 ± 3.74 | 125 | 9.12 ± 3.74 | 0.390 | -0.219 | ||
sss_cognitive | 2nd | 105 | 8.47 ± 3.57 | 0.128 | 94 | 8.17 ± 3.47 | 0.511 | 0.541 | 0.164 |
sss | 1st | 125 | 29.29 ± 10.45 | 125 | 29.84 ± 10.45 | 0.677 | -0.118 | ||
sss | 2nd | 105 | 28.29 ± 9.91 | 0.214 | 94 | 27.07 ± 9.59 | 0.591 | 0.382 | 0.259 |
Between group
recovery_stage_a
1st
t(405.32) = -0.83, p = 0.406, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.43 to 0.17)
2st
t(431.00) = 0.30, p = 0.767, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.39)
recovery_stage_b
1st
t(329.36) = -0.21, p = 0.833, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.83 to 0.67)
2st
t(379.38) = 2.33, p = 0.020, Cohen d = -0.53, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.75)
ras_confidence
1st
t(307.16) = 0.47, p = 0.637, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-1.06 to 1.74)
2st
t(353.84) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.08 to 2.88)
ras_willingness
1st
t(337.30) = 0.12, p = 0.902, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.48 to 0.54)
2st
t(387.07) = 1.31, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.18 to 0.92)
ras_goal
1st
t(323.00) = 0.84, p = 0.402, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.46 to 1.15)
2st
t(372.71) = 1.77, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.64)
ras_reliance
1st
t(306.99) = 0.49, p = 0.621, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.92)
2st
t(353.62) = 1.22, p = 0.223, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.29 to 1.26)
ras_domination
1st
t(343.45) = -1.29, p = 0.196, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.99 to 0.20)
2st
t(392.57) = 1.37, p = 0.172, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.20 to 1.09)
symptom
1st
t(295.77) = -1.03, p = 0.302, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-3.74 to 1.17)
2st
t(338.07) = -1.20, p = 0.230, Cohen d = 0.34, 95% CI (-4.15 to 1.00)
slof_work
1st
t(314.53) = -0.01, p = 0.989, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.13)
2st
t(363.04) = 0.29, p = 0.772, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.03 to 1.39)
slof_relationship
1st
t(308.88) = 1.15, p = 0.250, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.59 to 2.27)
2st
t(356.06) = 1.41, p = 0.158, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.43 to 2.61)
satisfaction
1st
t(302.41) = 1.51, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.42 to 3.15)
2st
t(347.50) = 1.55, p = 0.121, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.39 to 3.37)
mhc_emotional
1st
t(303.31) = 0.74, p = 0.459, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.29)
2st
t(348.72) = 0.57, p = 0.570, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.27)
mhc_social
1st
t(305.05) = -0.00, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-1.51 to 1.51)
2st
t(351.07) = 0.55, p = 0.583, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-1.15 to 2.05)
mhc_psychological
1st
t(300.20) = 0.36, p = 0.720, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-1.43 to 2.07)
2st
t(344.44) = 0.11, p = 0.910, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.74 to 1.95)
resilisnce
1st
t(323.69) = 1.38, p = 0.167, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.84)
2st
t(373.46) = 2.14, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.10 to 2.41)
social_provision
1st
t(311.35) = 2.11, p = 0.036, Cohen d = -0.50, 95% CI (0.05 to 1.44)
2st
t(359.16) = 3.11, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.78, 95% CI (0.43 to 1.90)
els_value_living
1st
t(308.76) = 0.97, p = 0.333, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.40 to 1.19)
2st
t(355.89) = 1.70, p = 0.091, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.57)
els_life_fulfill
1st
t(299.08) = 1.67, p = 0.095, Cohen d = -0.44, 95% CI (-0.12 to 1.51)
2st
t(342.86) = 2.01, p = 0.045, Cohen d = -0.55, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.74)
els
1st
t(294.06) = 1.42, p = 0.155, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.41 to 2.59)
2st
t(335.53) = 2.02, p = 0.044, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.04 to 3.19)
social_connect
1st
t(299.74) = -1.05, p = 0.295, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-3.50 to 1.06)
2st
t(343.79) = -2.17, p = 0.031, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-5.04 to -0.24)
shs_agency
1st
t(301.56) = 1.60, p = 0.110, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (-0.23 to 2.25)
2st
t(346.33) = 2.56, p = 0.011, Cohen d = -0.69, 95% CI (0.39 to 3.00)
shs_pathway
1st
t(311.58) = 1.97, p = 0.049, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.00 to 2.01)
2st
t(359.45) = 2.40, p = 0.017, Cohen d = -0.61, 95% CI (0.24 to 2.37)
shs
1st
t(300.09) = 1.86, p = 0.064, Cohen d = -0.48, 95% CI (-0.12 to 4.15)
2st
t(344.29) = 2.63, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.72, 95% CI (0.76 to 5.26)
esteem
1st
t(375.81) = -0.36, p = 0.721, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-0.47 to 0.32)
2st
t(415.93) = 0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.54)
mlq_search
1st
t(346.85) = 1.65, p = 0.100, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.58)
2st
t(395.44) = 0.07, p = 0.942, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.90 to 0.96)
mlq_presence
1st
t(320.88) = 0.87, p = 0.385, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.59 to 1.51)
2st
t(370.38) = 1.25, p = 0.212, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.41 to 1.83)
mlq
1st
t(325.08) = 1.36, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (-0.53 to 2.90)
2st
t(374.95) = 0.82, p = 0.415, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-1.07 to 2.60)
empower
1st
t(310.18) = 0.92, p = 0.356, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.65)
2st
t(357.69) = 1.13, p = 0.260, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.51 to 1.87)
ismi_resistance
1st
t(358.75) = -0.03, p = 0.980, Cohen d = 0.00, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.61)
2st
t(404.68) = 1.41, p = 0.160, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.19 to 1.16)
ismi_discrimation
1st
t(344.17) = -0.23, p = 0.822, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.86 to 0.68)
2st
t(393.18) = -1.27, p = 0.204, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.37 to 0.29)
sss_affective
1st
t(302.88) = 0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.68 to 1.13)
2st
t(348.14) = -1.03, p = 0.304, Cohen d = 0.28, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.45)
sss_behavior
1st
t(303.36) = -0.17, p = 0.865, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.01 to 0.85)
2st
t(348.79) = -0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = 0.25, 95% CI (-1.45 to 0.50)
sss_cognitive
1st
t(302.46) = 0.86, p = 0.390, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.52 to 1.34)
2st
t(347.57) = -0.61, p = 0.541, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.29 to 0.68)
sss
1st
t(291.30) = 0.42, p = 0.677, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-2.05 to 3.15)
2st
t(331.33) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-3.93 to 1.51)
Within treatment group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(229.33) = 1.49, p = 0.273, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.07 to 0.48)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(214.57) = 3.30, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.34 to 1.35)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(210.17) = 4.31, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.62, 95% CI (0.98 to 2.62)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(216.11) = 1.88, p = 0.123, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.70)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(213.33) = 3.30, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.35 to 1.40)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(210.14) = 3.12, p = 0.004, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.11)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(217.29) = 4.09, p = 0.000, Cohen d = -0.58, 95% CI (0.46 to 1.32)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(207.82) = -2.31, p = 0.044, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-2.84 to -0.22)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(211.65) = 1.71, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.09 to 1.31)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(210.52) = 1.67, p = 0.192, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.13 to 1.57)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(209.20) = 2.54, p = 0.023, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.29 to 2.31)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(209.38) = 1.41, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.15 to 0.91)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(209.74) = 2.56, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (0.26 to 2.01)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(208.74) = 1.84, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.06 to 1.88)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(213.47) = 3.32, p = 0.002, Cohen d = -0.47, 95% CI (0.48 to 1.89)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(211.02) = 1.70, p = 0.180, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.78)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(210.49) = 2.76, p = 0.012, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.13)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(208.51) = 2.25, p = 0.052, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.06 to 0.96)
els
1st vs 2st
t(207.47) = 2.95, p = 0.007, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.39 to 1.97)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(208.65) = -3.35, p = 0.002, Cohen d = 0.48, 95% CI (-3.40 to -0.88)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(209.02) = 2.69, p = 0.016, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.25 to 1.64)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(211.06) = 2.74, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.39, 95% CI (0.24 to 1.45)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(208.72) = 2.99, p = 0.006, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.61 to 2.98)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(223.45) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.29 to 0.36)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(217.93) = -0.07, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.65 to 0.61)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(212.91) = 2.52, p = 0.025, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (0.19 to 1.54)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(213.74) = 1.49, p = 0.276, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.28 to 1.98)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(210.78) = 2.76, p = 0.013, Cohen d = -0.40, 95% CI (0.27 to 1.62)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(220.20) = 2.88, p = 0.009, Cohen d = -0.41, 95% CI (0.22 to 1.18)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(217.42) = -3.05, p = 0.005, Cohen d = 0.43, 95% CI (-1.42 to -0.30)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(209.30) = -3.93, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.56, 95% CI (-1.53 to -0.51)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(209.39) = -3.15, p = 0.004, Cohen d = 0.45, 95% CI (-1.37 to -0.32)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(209.21) = -3.56, p = 0.001, Cohen d = 0.51, 95% CI (-1.48 to -0.42)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(206.88) = -4.10, p = 0.000, Cohen d = 0.59, 95% CI (-4.10 to -1.44)
Within control group
recovery_stage_a
1st vs 2st
t(218.69) = 0.22, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.23 to 0.29)
recovery_stage_b
1st vs 2st
t(208.50) = -0.77, p = 0.883, Cohen d = 0.10, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.29)
ras_confidence
1st vs 2st
t(205.58) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.05 to 1.52)
ras_willingness
1st vs 2st
t(209.53) = 0.04, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.35)
ras_goal
1st vs 2st
t(207.67) = 1.76, p = 0.159, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.05 to 0.95)
ras_reliance
1st vs 2st
t(205.55) = 1.85, p = 0.132, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.79)
ras_domination
1st vs 2st
t(210.32) = 0.25, p = 1.000, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.46)
symptom
1st vs 2st
t(204.03) = -1.97, p = 0.099, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-2.49 to -0.00)
slof_work
1st vs 2st
t(206.56) = 1.25, p = 0.425, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.09)
slof_relationship
1st vs 2st
t(205.81) = 1.14, p = 0.510, Cohen d = -0.16, 95% CI (-0.34 to 1.28)
satisfaction
1st vs 2st
t(204.94) = 2.43, p = 0.032, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.22 to 2.14)
mhc_emotional
1st vs 2st
t(205.06) = 1.74, p = 0.166, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.06 to 0.95)
mhc_social
1st vs 2st
t(205.29) = 1.63, p = 0.209, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.14 to 1.52)
mhc_psychological
1st vs 2st
t(204.64) = 2.39, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.05)
resilisnce
1st vs 2st
t(207.76) = 2.02, p = 0.088, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (0.02 to 1.36)
social_provision
1st vs 2st
t(206.13) = -0.28, p = 1.000, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.46 to 0.34)
els_value_living
1st vs 2st
t(205.79) = 1.44, p = 0.303, Cohen d = -0.20, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.78)
els_life_fulfill
1st vs 2st
t(204.49) = 1.52, p = 0.261, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.76)
els
1st vs 2st
t(203.80) = 1.71, p = 0.176, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.10 to 1.40)
social_connect
1st vs 2st
t(204.57) = -1.18, p = 0.479, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.92 to 0.48)
shs_agency
1st vs 2st
t(204.82) = 0.77, p = 0.881, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.40 to 0.92)
shs_pathway
1st vs 2st
t(206.17) = 1.87, p = 0.126, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.13)
shs
1st vs 2st
t(204.62) = 1.41, p = 0.321, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.32 to 1.93)
esteem
1st vs 2st
t(214.53) = -0.89, p = 0.752, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.17)
mlq_search
1st vs 2st
t(210.76) = 2.17, p = 0.062, Cohen d = -0.30, 95% CI (0.06 to 1.26)
mlq_presence
1st vs 2st
t(207.39) = 1.88, p = 0.122, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-0.03 to 1.26)
mlq
1st vs 2st
t(207.94) = 2.33, p = 0.041, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (0.20 to 2.35)
empower
1st vs 2st
t(205.98) = 2.42, p = 0.033, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (0.15 to 1.43)
ismi_resistance
1st vs 2st
t(212.30) = 0.89, p = 0.750, Cohen d = -0.12, 95% CI (-0.25 to 0.66)
ismi_discrimation
1st vs 2st
t(210.41) = -1.52, p = 0.258, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-0.94 to 0.12)
sss_affective
1st vs 2st
t(205.00) = -1.21, p = 0.459, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.19)
sss_behavior
1st vs 2st
t(205.06) = -1.76, p = 0.159, Cohen d = 0.24, 95% CI (-0.95 to 0.05)
sss_cognitive
1st vs 2st
t(204.94) = -0.93, p = 0.702, Cohen d = 0.13, 95% CI (-0.74 to 0.26)
sss
1st vs 2st
t(203.42) = -1.56, p = 0.239, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-2.27 to 0.26)
Plot
